South Tahoe attorney faces disciplinary action from State Bar
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe attorney Jordan Morgenstern faces disciplinary action from the California State Bar.
“We would not have gone forward with (the) matter if there was not evidence of misconduct. We do not go forward on speculation and conjecture,” Susan Kagan, deputy trial counsel for the State Bar, told Lake Tahoe News.
Jordan Morgenstern
In the 12-page report, it details several instances where Morgenstern took money for work, held onto the money for months, didn’t do work and didn’t return money in a timely manner.
Common practice for an attorney is to set up a trust account for each client so money is not co-mingled.
In the December ruling, the State Bar Court of California recommended Morgenstern be on probation for two years. The state Supreme Court will have the final say, which usually takes four to six months after the Bar has made its decision.
According to Kagan, the Supreme Court rarely overturns the Bar’s ruling.
If the court rules to discipline Morgenstern, the probation would begin 30 days later.
“What I admitted to was not providing clients with accounting as quickly (as I should have),” Morgenstern said. He said he agreed to a settlement because “I didn’t want to continue to pay a lawyer and go through all the garbage they put you through.”
Morgenstern said the disciplinary action is not newsworthy.
However, Kagan with the State Bar said, “We get a large number of complaints every year. Only a small number get to investigation and then an even smaller number to discipline.”
In a terse conversation with Lake Tahoe News, Morgenstern repeatedly bad-mouthed one of the people who brought allegations against him.
“I’m filing a restraining order against her today for what she is doing,” Morgenstern said Feb. 24 of Brenda Rogers.
Morgenstern and Rogers told Lake Tahoe News they plan to sue each other. Neither had anything nice to say about the other.
Interesting! We have an attorney complining about “the garbage attorneys put you through”
This sounded bad AT FIRST….until I actually read the report. It sounds like he was having family issues at the time, and had a hard time for a while. He never really did anything wrong, I dont think, except be untimely. I am going through “family issues” myself, and I can hardly keep it together either. I feel bad for this guy. I hope if this is just in retaliation that he gets through it quickly. I remember a business up here 20 years ago getting put in the paper by disgruntled employees and it was very sad. It cost the owners over a million dollars, and it was basically all lies. This sounds familiar. Good luck. It will pass.
This should be titled “Attorney is given STAYED Suspension. because that is what the report says. That is not really suspension. He still can practice law. No big deal. Looks like he was going through family problems, and was untimely according to the report. Find bigger news please.
r. nels: i have had experience with ‘this guy’ and can assure you that he has a pattern of disingenuity…regardless of his ‘family issues’…
Brenda Rogers has been a thorn in South Lake Tahoes side for many many years. Good Luck
It’s funny how he badmouthed a client when HE made mistakes and misconduct. The bar investigated him and found allegation to be TRUE. Sucks to be him!
I know Brenda Rogers, she is not a push me around person. Jordan cant take the truth that he made a lot of mistakes and It says he committed misconduct against his clients. He should be apologizing to his clients, not badmouthing them for standing up for there rights.
“I’m filing a restraining order against her today for what she is doing,” Good, she can get him on the record. You go girl.
They article forgot to mention he filed bankruptcy on his clients in 2009, but misconduct is not discharged in Bankruptcy, and the ruling said he committed misconduct. He is a fool to file anything against his clients and putting himself on the record.
He always wanted his money up front, would tell you a good story about how he can fix this, then would do nothing but try and buy more time, never showed up in court one day, yes I made the mistake had to get someone else and never got a refund.
It is sad to see people who don’t have anything better to do but try to destroy a person’s life and reputation. Ms. Roger’s obviously has too much time on her hands and needs to get a hobby. With that being said, my experience with Mr. Morgenstern has been nothing but good. We all make mistakes in life otherwise why would we need attorneys? I was in a situation and Mr. Morgenstern got the matter dismissed. He was honest, truthful and a very good lawyer. I would recommend him to anyone who needs an attorney.
to Error is human? Ha ha. No one tried to destroy anyone’s life, he did it to himself by commuting misconduct against his clients. The report is a fact of truth and “the truth has no agenda”. Were his clients just suppose to sit back and take it? They turned him into the bar like they were suppose to do, right? Im not sure why anyone would think his acts were ok. If he was having family issues he should have excused himself from his clients, they came to him for a problem and all they got were problems from him. His clients did the right thing by turning him in, I hope they get justice now. And if its true he filed Bankrupt, well the report days misconduct so they can go after him because misconduct is not dismissible in BK. If I were him I would move and practice someplace else.
I have got to tell you this guy is like a bulldog. He leaves no stone unturned. You ought to go see him in court. I saw him defending a guy on a drug charge, I was there for a friend’s case. He made the DA look like fools and the case was dismissed on a technicality. If I ever get into trouble I’ll hire this guy. Do your-self a favor go check him out?
You know our town has been losing tourism through the years. It might be visitors see attacks like this and think, screw this place.
You think visitors don’t see or read this stuff when they come to our town? Think again.
I remember a when locals helped each other no matter what, but that was 20 years ago.
It’s sad to see this kind of hatred in our town and it just keeps getting worse.
Time to grow up and act your age. Stop acting like an 8 year old child.
He still has some work to do to catch up to Joe Laub:
http://www.nvbar.org/findalawyerdetail.asp?Bar_Number=3664
Who cares. and by the way Laub screwed me on a Personal injury case. Laub passes cases on to others in his law firm. So I guess you support bad lawyers.
READ THE DISCIPLINE OF JOE M. LAUB AND YOU WILL SEE MORGENSTERN ALL OVER IT.
http://www.doctorlawyerwatch.com/docs/laubf19.html
Relationship between [*4] Perez and Laub
Perez and Laub met in the summer of 1995, apparently when a California lawyer employed by Laub & Laub, Jordan Morgenstern, introduced them. Morgenstern learned of Perez’s “surgery on a lien” services, and believed they would be useful to some of the firm’s clients. Laub introduced Perez to the firm’s employees in the Reno office and stated that he could be of assistance if a client needed medical treatment but had no ability to pay, The testimony conflicted as to whether Laub also introduced Perez to the Lake Tahoe office employees. The evidence also conflicted as to the scope of assistance Laub told the employees to give Perez. Sheila Parker, a legal assistant formerly employed by the firm in its Reno office, testified that if an employee thought a client might benefit from Perez’s services, she was required to obtain Laub’s permission before contacting Perez. But she also testified that Perez was given “carte blanche” to come in and view client files in search of cases he might be interested in.
The Sartain case:
Gary returned the following day and met with Jordan Morgenstern. Morgenstern was an experienced personal injury lawyer licensed in California, but he was not admitted in Nevada. He worked in both the Reno and Lake Tahoe offices of Laub & Laub.
Morgenstern and Gary executed a contingency fee agreement providing that the firm would receive one-third of any recovery as its fee, and would also be reimbursed for costs, The agreement did not contain the mandatory language of SCR 155(3), in bold as required by the rule, that in the [*8] event of a loss, the client could be liable for the opposing party’s attorney fees and costs. Laub testified that the Sartain case was the largest ever handled by Laub & Laub. By March 1996, the Sartains apparently were unhappy with the firm’s representation, particularly the failure to aggressively pursue a products liability claim. That month, the Sartains met with Laub and Melvin Laub in Carson City. This meeting was contentious, but at its end, the Sartains were still represented by Laub & Laub. Other than a brief introductory meeting between Laub, Theresa, Gary and Morgenstern at the Reno rehabilitation center in late September 1995, this was the only time Laub met with either Sartain. The record reflects that Morgenstern was assigned primary responsibility for the Sartain case, despite his lack of a Nevada license.
The testimony at the hearing indicates that Laub was the attorney responsible for handling the Sartains’ case. While the record reflects that Jordan Morgenstern performed most of the work on the case, Morgenstern was not a Nevada licensed attorney.